Upload
joy-potter
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Minot State University
Campus Climate Assessment
Results of Report
May 7, 2007
North Dakota University System Campus Climate Assessment Project
Background1
Commissioned by the Chancellor’s Office of the NDUS System in 2005 to:
Evaluate the climate at each of the system’s campuses
Present findings in a report to each campus
Present findings in an aggregate report
1all work in collaboration with the NDUS Diversity Council
Climate In Higher Education
Climate on University campuses not only affects the creation of knowledge, but also has a significant impact on members of the academic community who, in turn, contribute to the creation of the campus environment Bensimon, E. (2005), Hurtado, 2003; Milem, J., Chang, M., & Antonio, A. (2005) 1990; Rankin, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006; Smith, 1999; Tierney, 1990).
Preserving a climate that offers equal learning opportunities for all students and academic freedom for all faculty – an environment free from discrimination – is one of the primary responsibilities of educational institutions.
North Dakota University SystemCommitment to Diversity
1999 Diversity Council established
Members appointed by respective campus President
The Council serves to provide a collaborative working relationship between all campuses to improve cultural sensitivity regarding diversity and human relations.
The Council also serves to provide proactive guidance for the improvement of retention rates and academic achievements of diverse student populations (e.g., Tribal Relations Report, 2005).
Current Campus Climate
Access
Retention
Research
Scholarship
Curriculum Pedagogy
UniversityPolicies/Service
Intergroup &IntragroupRelations
Institutional Transformation Model:Maximizing Equity©
Baseline Organizational
Challenges
SystemsAnalysis
Local / Sate /Regional
Environments
Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment
AdvancedOrganizational
Challenges
ConsultantRecommendations
Assessment
Transformationvia
Intervention
FiscalActions
Symbolic Actions
AdministrativeActions
EducationalActions Transformed
Campus Climate
Access
Retention
Research
Scholarship
Curriculum Pedagogy
UniversityPolices/Service
Intergroup &IntragroupRelations
© 2001
Proposed Phases in Transformational Process
Assessment
Strategic Planning
Implementation & Accountability
Process to Date
October 2005 Presented proposal to NDUS Diversity Council Reviewed sample survey tool
November 2005-January 2006 Survey developed, reviewed, and revised with continued
input from NDUS Diversity Council (6 drafts) Both on-line and paper/pencil forms created Campuses developed marketing/communication plan to
prepare campus constituents to participate in the survey System IRB approved
Process to Date
February 2005 - May 2006 Survey made available to all members of each
campus community through an invitation from the President
MSU survey distributed February 13-March 3July 10, 2006 Meeting with NDUS Diversity Council Provide update on the progress of the project to date Review process forward and next steps
Process to Date
August-December 2006 Campus report drafts forwarded to respective campuses Final reports forwarded to respective campuses
December 2006 Aggregate report draft forwarded to K. Nettell & R.
Schauer
January 2007 Final aggregate report forwarded to all campuses
Survey Instrument
Final instrument 62 questions and additional space for respondents to provide
commentary On-line survey
Sample = Population All members of the MSU community were invited to participate
Results include information regarding: Respondents’ personal experiences at MSU Respondents’ perceptions of climate at MSU Respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions Respondents’ input into recommendations for change
Who are the respondents?
654 people responded to the call to participate
11% of respondents contributed comments via the open-ended questions
Limitations
Self-selection bias Overall 22% response rate Caution in generalizing the results due to
significantly low response rates for undergraduate students
Faculty Response Rates
Assistant Professor (n=30)
Associate Professor (n=13)
Faculty = 41% (n=75)
Professor (n=11)
Instructor/Lecturer/Adjunct (n=21)
Staff Response Rates
Non-Classified Staff (n=12)
Classified staff (n=76)
Academic Staff (n=11)
Administrator = 63% (n=12)
Staff = 48% (n=99)
Student Response Rates
Undergraduate Students = 16% (n=400)
Graduate Students = 37% (n=41)
Masters/Doctoral Degree Candidates (n=31)
Post-Baccalaureate Student (n=10)
Respondents by MSU Status (n)
400
4175
99
12 117
Undergraduate StudentGraduate StudentFacultyStaffAdministratorOtherDeclined to respond
Respondents by Gender & MSU Position (n)
324
83
8
49
4
116
25 16
Students Faculty Staff Admin
Women
Men
Respondents by Sexual Orientation & MSU Status (n)
425
9367
120
144 2
Students Faculty Staff Admin
Heterosexual
LGBQ
Respondents byAge and Position(n)
74
120
95
22
51
7
20
73
20
29
49
72
0
2019
00 00
19
4
24
005 5
2000
19 orunder
20-21 22-24 25-32 33-42 43-51 52-60 61-69
Students
Faculty
Staff
Administrator
Respondents by Racial/Ethnic IdentityDuplicated Total (n)1
1Inclusive of multi-racial and/or multi-ethnic
586
3112 6 4
269 4
2 2 3
Caucasian/White (non-Hispanic)Native American/American IndianLatino(a)/Chicano(a)/HispanicAfrican AmericanBlackOtherAsianAsian AmericanAfricanAlaskan NativePacific Islander/Filipino
Native American/American Indian by Tribal Affiliation (n)1
Tribal Affiliation n
Assinoboine Sioux 1
Cheroke 3
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 1
Chippewa 3
Cree 1
Hidasta/Crow 1
Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Chippewa 1
Sissetion--Wahpeton--Oxate 1
Spirit Lake Tribe 1
Standing Rock Sioux 1
Three affiliated tribes 1
Turtle mountain Chippewa 5
Respondents by Racial/Ethnic IdentityUnduplicated Total (n)
53
599
People of Color White People
Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation (n)
9 12 9
28
2 3 1 2 4 81 5 1
9
192
27
6 114
1
163
36
4 8
40 40
11
Atheis
t
Agnost
ic
Assem
bly o
f God
Baptis
t
Baha'
I
Buddhis
t
Comm
unity o
f Chris
t
E. Orth
odox
Episco
pal
Evang
elic
al Fre
e
Hindu
Jehova
h's W
itness
Jew
ish
LDS
Luther
an
Met
hodist
Nativ
e Am
eric
an Tra
ditional
Pagan
Pente
cost
al
Presb
yteria
n
Qua
ker
Roman
Catholic
Spiritu
al, n
ot affi
liate
d
Unitaria
n/Univ
ersa
list
Wic
can
No Affi
liatio
n
Oth
er
Respondents1 by Time at MSU (n)
1Employees include all faculty and staff
22
117
42
209
555036
22 303178
Students Employees
1 yr. or less
2-4 yrs.
5-10 yrs.
11-19 yrs.
20-29 yrs.
+ 30 yrs.
Respondents with Conditions that Substantially Affect a Major Life Activity (n)
24
6
1312 13
27
8
1
47
3
9
3
8
3 2
10
0 0
4
Students Employees
Learning disabilityOrthopedicVisualHearingPsychologicalADHD/ADDHealth relatedTBISpeechOther
Citizenship Status by Position
Citizenship statusStudents Employees
n % n %
U.S. citizen—born in the United States 371 83.6 180 93.3
U.S. citizen—naturalized 11 2.5 3 1.6
Permanent resident (immigrant) 5 1.1 6 3.1
International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa) 57 12.8 4 2.1
Income by MSU Student Status (n)
133
111107
40
29
$19,999 or below
$20K - $39,999
$40K - $69,999
$70K - $99,999
$100K or above
Parental Education by Undergraduate Student Status (n)
2 3
7770
49
30
76 79
27 27
8 11
22
14
126137
Parent/Guardian 1 Parent/Guardian 2
No Formal EducationNo High SchoolHigh SchoolSome CollegeAssociates DegreeBachelors DegreeGraduate DegreeOther Professional Degree
Students Primary Location/Avenue
for Taking Courses
Location n %
Main Campus 365 83.9
Satellite Campus 2 0.5
Distance learning 33 7.6
Both Campus classes & Distance learning 35 8.0
Students’ Residence
Students’ Residences n %
Family housing 24 5.5
Residence hall/Apartment style housing 90 20.7
Off campus apartment/house 181 41.6
Off campus with partner/spouse/children 93 21.4
Off campus with parent(s)/family/relative(s) 39 9.0
Other 8 1.8
Attended Diversity Program at MSU in Past Year
Attended Program within Past Year n %
Residence hall diversity program1 55 61.1
Campus sponsored multicultural program 198 30.3
Academic unit sponsored diversity event 128 19.6
Other cultural events (e.g., Powwow, Black History month event, Cultural speakers) 294 45.0
Other 19 2.9
I have not attended any multi-cultural/diversity programs/events 234 35.8
Findings
Aggregate Findings
80% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate at MSU.
81% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their academic department/program of study
84% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes/work area/unit
Aggregate Findings
83% of respondents have not personally experienced any conduct that has interfered with their ability to work, learn, or participate in any activity on campus.
82% of respondents have not observed or personally been made aware of any conduct that has created an offensive, intimidating, of hostile working or learning environment
67% of students feel that the classroom climate is welcoming for people from underrepresented groups.
61% of employees feel that the workplace climate is welcoming for people from underrepresented groups.
Challenges and Opportunities
Personally Experienced Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct at MSU
Experienced n %
Yes 106 16.2
No 545 83.3
Personally Experienced Based on…(%)
38
30
2524
2220
15
11 11
MSU Status (n=40)Age (n=32)Gender identity (n=26)Educational level (n=25)Other (n=23)Political Views (n=21)Religion (n=16)Race (n=12)Socioeconomic class (n=12)
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct
the Percent due to MSU Status
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
19
0
78
0
28
13
43
20
Students Faculty Staff Admin
Percent experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to position²
(n=59)¹(n=12)²
(n=21)¹(n=9)²
(n=19)¹(n=15)²
(n=0)¹(n=0)²
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct
the Percent due to Race by Race
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
1621
5
55
People of Color White
Percent experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due toethnicity²
(n=11)¹(n=6)²
(n=94)¹(n=5)²
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct
the Percent due to Gender Identity by Gender
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
11
18
6
28
Women Men
Percent experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due togender²
(n=86)¹(n=24)²
(n=18)¹(n=1)²
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct the Percent due
to Sexual Orientation
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
38
16
38
3
Heterosexual LGB and Uncertain
Percent experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due tosexual orientation²
(n=96)¹(n=3)²
(n=8)¹(n=3)²
Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct the Percent due
to Spiritual Affiliation
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.
14
25
12
23
NonChristian Christian
Percent experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due toreligion²
(n=30)¹(n=7)²
(n=68)¹(n=8)²
Form of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct
Form of Personal Experience % n
Felt intimidated/bullied 50.0 53
Deliberately ignored or excluded 34.0 36
Derogatory remarks 30.2 32
Felt bullied 30.2 32
Other 24.5 26
Isolated or left out when work was required in groups 16.0 17
Stares 16.0 17
Feared getting a poor grade due to hostile classroom environment 15.0 16
Feared for my physical safety 6.6 7
Source of Conduct by MSU Status (n)
46
24
5
37
52
16
95
63
3
38 37
50
16
Student Respondents Faculty Respondents Staff Respondents
Source = StudentSource = FacultySource = StaffSource = AdministratorSource = Supervisor
Where did the conduct occur?
While working at a University job (40%) In a class (27%) Meeting with a group (24%) Meeting with one person (16%) Walking on campus (19%) Campus office (16%) Public space on campus (15%) Faculty office (15%)
What did you do?1
Felt embarrassed (43%) Told a friend (43%) Avoided the harasser (38%) Ignored it (26%) 23% made a complaint to an MSU official 16% didn’t know who to go to 23% did not report the incident for fear of retaliation
1Respondents could mark more than one response
Victim of Sexual Assault While at MSU?
n %
Yes 10 1.5
All victims were women
6 were undergraduate students; 3 were employees
Victims of Sexual Assault
Where did it occur?
On-Campus (n=7)
Off-campus (n=3)
Who was the offender?
Professor (n=4)
Co-worker (n=3)
Acquaintance (n=2)
Victims of Sexual Assault
What did you do1?Told a friend (n=6)
Told a family member (n=5)
Sought medical services (n=2)
Sought support from an MSU resource (n=3)
Sought support from a campus faculty member (n=3)
Sought information on-line (n=2)
Nothing (n=2)
1Respondents could mark more than one response
Comfortable Being “Out” on Campus (%)
19
2
8
2
14
3 4 4
24
1416
1410
28 28 27 29
43
36
42
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often
LGBU (Total n=21)Heterosexual (Total n=603)People of Color (n=50)White People (n=582)
Perceptions of Campus Climate
80% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate at MSU.
81% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their academic department/program of study
84% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes/work area/unit
Comfort with Overall Campus Climate by Race (%)
14
23
56
63
21
96 3 4 2
Very comfortable Comfortable Unsure Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
People of ColorWhite
Comfort with Climate in Academic Dept/Program or Administrative Dept by Race (%)
16
32
68
52
149
25
0 2
Very comfortable Comfortable Unsure Uncomfortable VeryUncomfortable
People of ColorWhite
Observed Harassment
Observed % n
Yes 17.9 117
No 81.5 553
Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Race/Ethnicity
17
26
White People (n=103) People of Color (n=14)
Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Gender
1719
Female (n=82) Male (n=33)
Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by MSU Status
14
31
25
17
Students (n=61)Faculty (n=23)Staff (n=25)Administrators (n=2)
Form of Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct (%)
Form of Observed Harassment n %
Deliberately ignored or excluded 53 45.3
Stares 46 39.3
Derogatory remarks 42 35.9
Target of racial/ethnic profiling 35 29.9
Intimidated/bullied 33 28.2
Receiving a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 25 21.4
Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity 18 15.4
Isolated or left out when work was required in groups 18 15.4
Singled out as “resident authority” due to their identity 17 14.5
Source of Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct (%)
Students (55%) Faculty (35%) Administrators (18%) Staff (18%) Department chair/program director (15%)
Perceived Discriminatory Behavior or Employment Practices
n %
Yes 47 24.1
Based on: Position Status (40%, n=19) Gender Identity (28%, n=13) Educational Level (26%, n=12) Age (26%, n=12)
MSU Addresses Issues of Ethnicity by Race (%)
24
8
2
27
17
50
25
51
14
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree
People of Color (n=52)
White (n=583)
MSU Addresses Issues of Gender Identity by Gender (%)
12
5
40
2
48
28
6
4.0
34
25.0
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree
Female (n=466)
Male (n=170)
MSU Addresses Issues of Sexual Orientation by Sexual Orientation (%)
10
30
13
4
20
15
10
45
32
7
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree
LGBU (n=20)
Heterosexual (n=611)
MSU Addresses Issues of Employee Status by Position (%)
92
12
39
49
25
15
28
83
8
0 0
40
9
40 3541
10
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree
Students (n=438)
Faculty (n=74)
Staff (n=98)
Administrators (n=12)
President’s Office Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)
53
7275
83
47
0
10
Students Faculty Staff Administrator
Agree*
Disagree**
President’s Office Visibly Fosters Diversity by Race and Sexual Orientation (%)
48
60
52
59
17
85
9
People of Color White People LGBU Heterosexual
Agree*
Disagree**
Dean of Students Office Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)
37
44
29
44
16
8 79
Student of Color White Student LGBU Student Heterosexual Student
Agree*
Disagree**
My Academic Dean/Unit Head Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)
48 47
58
39
50
40
8 5
55
8 9 9 6
16
All Res
pondents
Student
Faculty
Staff
Perso
n of C
olor
Femal
e
LGBU
Agree*
Disagree**
My Supervisor Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)
55 53
6571
48
59
40
5816
10688
Agree*
Disagree**
Student Government Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)
49 51
35
50
29
40
52
12 10
33
11
2112 12
All Stu
dents
White
Stu
dent
Studen
t of C
olor
Heter
osexu
al S
tude
nt
LGBU Stu
dent
Mal
e Stu
dent
Femal
e Stu
dent
Agree*
Disagree**
Course Content Inclusive of Difference (%)
64
72
5561
9 758
Students Faculty People of Color White People
Agree*Disagree**
Course Content Inclusive of Difference (%)
60 6257
61
85
107
Female Male LGBU Heterosexual
Agree*
Disagree**
Employee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate (%)
23
83
21
3324
17 17
61 61
50
64
0
151414
All Respondents People of Color White People LGBU Heterosexual
Agree*Do Not Agree or DisagreeDisagree**
Student Perceptions of Welcoming Classroom Climate (%)
68
49
7168 70
57
69
11
27
912
7
21
10
All Students Students ofColor
White Students Female Male LGBU Heterosexual
Agree*
Disagree**
Student Perceptions of Welcoming Classroom Climate (%)
68
49
7168 70
57
69
11
27
912
7
21
10
All Students Students ofColor
White Students Female Male LGBU Heterosexual
Agree*
Disagree**
Workshops/Programs Would Positively Affect Campus Climate
StronglyAgree
Agree Do not Agree or Disagree
Disagree StronglyDisagree
n % n % n % n % n %
Age (52%) 86 13.1 253 38.7 240 36.7 40 6.1 3 0.5
Country of origin (58%) 102 15.6 278 42.5 204 31.2 33 5.0 3 0.5
Ethnicity (65%) 123 18.8 300 45.9 170 26.0 26 4.0 3 0.5
Race (63%) 116 17.7 297 45.4 177 27.1 22 3.4 4 0.6
English as a second language status (57%) 98 15.0 275 42.0 210 32.1 30 4.6 6 0.9
Psychological disability status (58%) 86 13.1 296 45.3 218 33.3 18 2.8 2 0.3
Learning disability status (61%) 95 14.5 306 46.8 202 30.9 20 3.1 2 0.3
Physical disability status (61%) 96 14.7 305 46.6 197 30.1 23 3.5 2 0.3
Physical characteristics (51%) 71 10.9 259 39.6 249 38.1 36 5.5 6 0.9
Sexual orientation (54%) 95 14.5 260 39.8 219 33.5 35 5.4 14 2.1
Gender identity (53%) 91 13.9 254 38.8 226 34.6 36 5.5 13 2.0
Gender expression (51%) 92 14.1 240 36.7 232 35.5 41 6.3 15 2.3
Religion (52%) 89 13.6 250 38.2 239 36.5 35 5.4 8 1.2
Socioeconomic class (53%) 85 13.0 262 40.1 242 37.0 27 4.1 5 0.8
Veterans/Active military (51%) 79 12.1 252 38.5 246 37.6 33 5.0 9 1.4
Questions..? Other Ideas..?
Next Steps…
Transformational Change
A change in the institution’s: Shape – how the institution
looks which allows it to function effectively in the dynamic world in which it operates.
Structure – the basic parts of the institution that are responsible for its character.
Nature – values, beliefs , reward systems, ownership, patterns, etc.
Institutional Prerequisites for Change1
1) Commitment of top leaders
2) Written description of the changed institution
3) Conditions that foster positive change
4) Likelihood of a critical mass of support
5) Awareness of resistance and the need to honor it
1Adpated from Beckhard (1992)
Institutional Prerequisites for Change
6) A medium to long range perspective7) Awareness of the need for education8) The conviction that the change must be
undertaken9) Willingness to use resources10) Commitment to maintaining the flow of
information
NDUS Diversity Council Retreat April 20-21, 2007
Objectives
Review Vision NDUS Diversity Council Vision
Develop NDUS Diversity Council Goals for System
Create 1-2 actions per goal that cross campuses
Create additional actions for each campus to best address their respective challenges and contexts
Vision
Vision without action is a daydream and action without vision is a nightmare.
-- Japanese proverb
Vision 2007
A Community of Difference where, through education & awareness, all are accepted, respected, & celebrated.
Development of Strategic Plan Areas for consideration
Access/Retention Research/Scholarship Curriculum/Pedagogy Inter-group/Intra-group
Relations University
Policies/Service External Relations
Transformed Campus Climate
Access
Retention
Research
Scholarship
Curriculum Pedagogy
UniversityPolices/Service
Intergroup &IntragroupRelations
Development of Strategic Plan Action areas
Symbolic actionsFiscal actionsAdministrative actionsEducational actions
Transformationvia
Intervention
FiscalActions
Symbolic Actions
AdministrativeActions
EducationalActions
Transformed Campus Climate
Access
Retention
Research
Scholarship
Curriculum Pedagogy
UniversityPolices/Service
Intergroup &IntragroupRelations
What thoughts do you have?
Additional questions/comments on results?
Thoughts on process?Suggested actions?
Contact Dr. Rankin at [email protected]
Last Thoughts
“Resistance begins with people confronting pain, whether it’s theirs or somebody else’s, and wanting to do something to change it”
--- bell hooks,“Yearning”